Re-read the interaction leading up to that comment. It was a perfectly reasonable response to the implication that only machines can avoid jumping to conclusions.

the 'welcome to machine' reply was not in response to a comment about jumping to false conclusions; it was in response to your comment that refraining from false assumptions works better to quell false assumptions than does disclosure. 'welcome to machine' was the name of a song by Pink Floyd released in 1975.

"I'm sure if you have a better idea, one that is easier to implement, better assures authenticity, runs faster, etc., the ARRL would be GLAD to hear your suggestions."

I very respected Dx'er in my area has communicated these opinions to the league and the response has been just short of "too bad".

What I said was, "If you can design and implement a BETTER system for the ARRL's LOTW, tell them about it." I didn't say to complain to them because YOU don't like it. Opinions are like ... well, you know what. If you like clublog so much, use it. And if you don't like LOTW, don't use it. Simple as it gets, isn't it?

but perfection is elusive and creativity demands a willingness to play with false assumptionsyesterday's science contained false assumptions; and tomorrow's science will find the same problem with today's. i suppose debunkers like yourself do play a useful role...

but perfection is elusive and creativity demands a willingness to play with false assumptions yesterday's science contained false assumptions; and tomorrow's science will find the same problem with today's. i suppose debunkers like yourself do play a useful role...

We weren't discussing protein folding or string theory or any other topic where thinking outside the box would be beneficial. Your misinterpretation of a statement from the ARRL's CEO led you to the incorrect conclusion that there's a team of developers dedicated to LotW, when in fact only a fraction of one person is available for LotW development and maintenance. There's no constructive justification for this particular false assumption.

Your misinterpretation of a statement from the ARRL's CEO led you to the incorrect conclusion that there's a team of developers dedicated to LotW, when in fact only a fraction of one person is available for LotW development and maintenance.

Actually I never assumed a team was dedicated to LoTW, just that there was an IT team available to at least weigh in on the LoTW issues if and when they arise -- so pot meet kettle.

Quote from: AA6YQ

There's no constructive justification for this particular false assumption.

Your misinterpretation of a statement from the ARRL's CEO led you to the incorrect conclusion that there's a team of developers dedicated to LotW, when in fact only a fraction of one person is available for LotW development and maintenance.

Actually I never assumed a team was dedicated to LoTW, just that there was an IT team available to at least weigh in on the LoTW issues if and when they arise -- so pot meet kettle.

Your exact words were no, I had taken K1ZZ's mention of "the present IT staff" below to mean there was a team available to spend some of their time on that..." . I should have characterized your incorrect conclusion as "there's a team of developers available to LotW, when in fact only a fraction of one person is available for LotW development and maintenance."

Quote from: AA6YQ

There's no constructive justification for this particular false assumption.

Copyright 2000-2015 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement